A friendly reminder: the Pope is (probably) the antichrist

The Pope accepts the titles and positions (supposed) of Vicar of Christ, the Head of the Church, and the Holy Father. Sounds close to his being in position as a visible substitute for the Trinity.

The Cripplegate post has quite a lot of interesting history… I guess prior dispensationalism, the idea of one antichrist was pretty unheard of. So “the” antichrist was sort of like “the governor” —it was like a position occupied by one person at a time, but not a particular individual.

As a dispensationalist, I don’t see a problem with the “office” idea but would also see it as culminating in a final office-holder of which the others were all precursors. I do think a final world ruler is coming who will lead mankind’s last desperate attempt to organize a perfect society by its own rules and “wisdom” (I wonder if they’ll still be calling it “science”).

If anybody thinks the Pope is the Antichrist, please prove it from Dan 7.

I am no eschatology expert, so this will be, well you know, a vague outline. But the main concept, I guess, Constantinism or Eusebius theology or whatever. It was the duty of the church to be an extension of Christ’s rule on earth through the civil government, to recreate Old Testament Israel (basically) throughout the globe. They believed - and still believe - that it is their duty to “conquer the globe for Christianity” in a combination religious/political sense. It was to subdue the globe for Christianity in preparation for the return of Christ, although not necessarily in a “once we have church-states established all over the globe then Christ will come” type of cause and effect … it was more so because they believed that God commanded them to establish these (and in their system the return of Jesus Christ, while of course being something that was believed, was nonetheless in the background).

Now Luther, Calvin and the other church-state reformers did not leave Eusebius theology behind. Instead, their goal was to leave Rome and set up the “true” state church system based on the Bible. As Rome was a false state church system based on their apostate religion, they were Babylon, a Satanic imitation of the true political system that God wanted the true church to build. And as the pope was the leader of the Catholic church, he was the anti-Christ.

Keep in mind: Revelation wasn’t paid much attention to for most of Christianity since the early church, and there were repeated attempts to leave it out of the canon. It wasn’t until the Reformation that it became prominent. However, even then they didn’t interpret it literally, but in an allegoric and symbolic fashion for their polemical use against the Catholic Church. Of course they believed it was true … they believed that God knew that a false state church system would come about (or more accurately the original such system would fall into apostasy just as Israel in the OT fell into apostasy) and Revelation spoke of it. The Catholics in turn went from generally ignoring Revelation to in response to the Reformers coming up with their own interpretation of Revelation, that it was primarily written for the early church to address conditions in their time.

But the Reformers did not believe in a literal, personal anti-Christ, great tribulation, etc. any of that. They just believed that the Catholic Church represented Satan’s attempts to oppose and subvert the church’s mandate to govern the globe. Dispensationalism takes an entirely different view of Revelation, the anti-Christ, the tribulation, etc. than the Reformers did, and that is an understatement.

P.S. Their convictions was why the Reformers persecuted the Anabaptists, who posed a major theological and political threat that could not be countenanced. It would have been one thing had the Anabaptists been actual heretics or practicing another religion outright. But since they represented - or were attempting to represent - Bible based Christianity but without the Eusebian theology and state church aspirations, they were actually a bigger threat than the Catholics were.

Calvin, for one, takes great pains to attack the Pope at every turn! I quite understand, given his background and the context of the Reformation. I have also seen Barnes do the same. Matthew Henry identifies the Antichrist as the Pope as well.

I believe “On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church” was Luther’s first flat out statement that the Pope was the antichrist. He alluded to it before but it was there he said it explicitly.

[Aaron Blumer]

The Cripplegate post has quite a lot of interesting history… I guess prior dispensationalism, the idea of one antichrist was pretty unheard of. So “the” antichrist was sort of like “the governor” —it was like a position occupied by one person at a time, but not a particular individual.

As a dispensationalist, I don’t see a problem with the “office” idea but would also see it as culminating in a final office-holder of which the others were all precursors. I do think a final world ruler is coming who will lead mankind’s last desperate attempt to organize a perfect society by its own rules and “wisdom” (I wonder if they’ll still be calling it “science”).

It is both an office and a person. In Revelation 13, there are 2 beasts described, but one is specifically identified as a person, and the number of the beast is said to be of a man.

What makes the argument for the office is Revelation 18:20:

Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

The “her” here said to have the the blood of saints found in her. v 24. So whoever “her” is, according to verse 20, killed the apostles AND prophets. We know that there were no prophets several hundred years before Christ, and since Rome did not take the scepter from Greece until shortly before Christ was born, Rome couldn’t have killed the prophets, but Rome did kill the apostles.

Likewise, those before Rome (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece) couldn’t not have killed the apostles, but they did kill the prophets.

Thus the only way to reconcile Revelation 18:20 is if this was an office that extended from all of the empires of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of the 666 foot tall image (and I would argue from there to Nimrod), with the final empire at the time all hell breaks loose (literally) being Rome.

Rome isn’t the final kingdom. There is no revived roman empire. That is nothing more than eisegesis. The whore of babylon? Simple, Israel. Who killed the apostles and prophets? Simple, Israel. Who is the 4th kingdom of Daniel 2? Simple, Israel. Who is the 4th beast of Daniel 7? Simple, Israel.

JamesK:

I must disagree with you, my friend! How do you find Israel as the fourth beast in Dan 7? I shall wait to provide my own analysis; I don’t want to respond to an argument you didn’t make.

Too much to go over all in one post. However, consider these thoughts:

1. There is no revived Roman empire. This is pure myth and speculation.

2. There is only one Prince in Daniel 9:24-27.

3. The beasts of Daniel 7 are not the same kingdoms as Daniel 2.

4. The beasts of Daniel 7 rise up at the same time. They are not consecutive.

5. The discover of the 4th beast’s identity made Daniel sick. He probably would have expected a gentile person/people. It wasn’t though.

6. Scofield and Dallas Seminary don’t have a corner on prophetic truth.

Btw, I am not some crazy amill or postmill either. I am a dispensational premill.

Nero!

I liked your list, but I disagreed with everything you said! I’ll post something in response later. I am also dispensational, pre-mill. I am definitely from the younger generation - I haven’t ever read the Scofield notes before.

Scofield’s Reference Notes …. available online

http://www.studylight.org/com/srn/

So, calling the pope “anti-Christ” isn’t being mean-spirited. It is what it is. The Roman leader and the doctrine that comes from his chair has historically been “anti-gospel” as well as “anti-Christos.” The Gospel of Rome is a gospel of works vis-a-vis imputed/forensic/alien from Christ alone….by faith alone. Also within Roman theology and practice, Christ is not worshipped as “the only mediator” between God and man. It’s not just the place of Jesus as High Priest, frankly the Roman view shares the honor/Deity and even “place” of Jesus (which according to Colossians 1 is Jesus alone) with Mary, apostles….and if that wasn’t bad enough……the Pope…….who is “another” (“anti”)…….Christ.

For evangelicals to officially open their arms to official Romanism under the mask of “koinonia” is horrible. Treason! It violates the gospel! This kind of evangelicalism is truly neo-evangelicalism/ecumenical evangelicalism and should be marked out. It is my theory that ecumenical evangelicalism will merge itself with the charismatic world and the Roman Catholic world to make up much of the one-world religion that will mark the eschaton…..before God destroys it. (for the three of you who care).

a quick thought from the shadow’s of the cacti…..

Straight Ahead!

jt

I deny the Pope is the Anti-Christ. This doesn’t mean I believe they have the Gospel. They do not. The Catholic Church is clearly in error; I would not classify their doctrine as Christian. Anybody who is a Christian within Romanism is so in spite of their doctrine, not because of it.